Hey, I do have my favorites in the the U.S. squad (go Lee, go Rico, go Herc), but that doesn't mean I felt sorry for any of them suffering a beat down in the Copa America.
It's a game. You come to play, and so do they, and if you don't bring it hard the whole time, you're going to lose or get very lucky.
The U.S. didn't get lucky.
In my mind, that's fine. These young players need to learn to win without that.
24 comments:
AC, big fan! Hey, I just read an article about Guus Hiddink and his Australian team. Pre-WC he took the Aussies to the Netherlands and ran them wild, absolutely into the ground to get them in shape. Guys had never been through a program like that. Paid off in their play. With our US team, do we need to play a more physical, bruising style, and get in even better shape to outhustle these elite teams like Argentina, Mexico (away), Euros, etc? Are we "too soft" right now? Thank you!
Hustle wasn't the problem against Paraguay - composure was. That's why I think competitions like this, so the U.S. players won't be so giddy and green, are a good idea.
So these young know more about themselves and where they need to improve. But imagine what the first choice players could have learned about themselves if they were there? Development isn't just for the inexperience we all have to push ourselves demanding further improvement. The Gold Cup could have used this experience as that bunch made plenty of mistakes, failed to finish, and scored mostly off of pks. Those guys in the Gold Cup couldn't have really benefited from the stronger competition AC.
Of course the other players could have learned something from Copa America too, but if the U.S. wants to build something called depth, it's important to spread around the learning experiences.
I was optimistic about building depth with this squad but I do not think that has been accomplished.
For instance, Ricardo, Benny, Bornstein, Johnson, Demerit, Conrad, we already knew they were important pieces in our depth. Have they improved significantly or have we learned anything new about them?
What we have learned is that there is more dead weight than originally contemplated. I think you can put Twellman, Mapp, Keller, Gaven, and a few others in there. More questions maybe have been raied, is Johnson really our forward to build around, can Guzan play, can Wynn play, etc....
I think the jury is out on this expirement and let's not be afraid to call this what it is. A failure.
Some were optimistic and we gave it a good effort and shot but this is a resounding embarrasing failure.
What ever prestige and honor US Soccer had internationally is evaporated by 3 out of the last 4 major tournaments in a row where we finish dead last in our group. 7 goals in two games given up is a whoopin, and there is not pride in that. Now the international press has more fuel for their fire.
This respect you speak of - is it tasty? Is it warm?
Does it serve any practical purpose for a team to care what the international media think?
If what Bradley learned was that certain players can't hack it at the top level, that's important, too. Especially for a coach that has particular preferences.
Frankly, I don't think that U.S. pride getting dinged is bad. Humility begets hunger, and I'll take a hungry team to win over one burdened by pride.
If the US really wants to build depth then the more experienced regulars should have been therefore putting their collective pride on the line. They are the ones who could really benefit from being humbled not the newbies. The Gold Cup guys should be proud of what they accomplished but boy could they have learned something about making those kinds of mistakes they made in Gold Cup against the likes of Argentina and Paraguay. Such a great test passed up by the US.
You simply don't build depth by using the same players for every tournament.
Neither do you know how good your regulars are until they have been tested by some of the best the world has to offer. I just don't think using serious competitions like this one is the place for depth building. If the US can't use Copa America to test its regulars then when do you before the next cycle? Please don't say the upcoming friendlies in Europe. Those don't matches have nothing riding on them and are used by most to build their depth. Like Denmark did this past winter. But we used your regulars for matches like that one only to feel a false sense of "we are playing so well".
But I do agree with you that you can't send the same people to every tournament I just wished the US had done a better job of mixing experience players with inexperience players. Instead we sent some players who have no business being called into a camp let alone on the Copa America squad. They could have given some of them training sessions with the regulars before sending them off to Copa. I'm saying a least they could have had some preparation before going. Having players in shock like that is conducive to learning and depth building. Whatever happen to gradually drawing them in? Bradley did that for his son. I could go on and on about this. May problem is with how this was all done you believe in one way and I believe in another way. There are many ways to build depth.
Your quote "I'll take a hungry team over one burdened by pride" just shows the naivete of the soccer community in the US.
When Argentina and Brazil step out on to the pitch they play for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to win. They definately are filled w/ pride and I would not call it a burden.
One should listen to Alfio "Coco" Basile to reflect on our lost opportunity and maybe lost invitation to the next Copa. Alfio says, Argentina plays the same against anybody and everybody and they are here to win. Argentina is always there or here to win anywhere.
A friendly reminder is that international football is not the NCAA or the NFL. Only 7 nations have ever won the tourney, 3 in South America, and 4 in Europe. I promise you that confidence, self belief and pride had just as much to do with it as hunger.
This whole building depth thing is a red herring. The more I think about it, the US Federation probably did not want to discredit or cheapen their so called important regional dominance by getting smacked around with an "A" team. They had a built in excuse.
I hope Conmebol takes pitty on us an invites us back.
Your quote "You simply don't build depth by using the same players for every tournament."
A sr national team tournament is not meant to build depth nor it is meant to develop players. A tournament is meant to win. You have club academies, schools, and jr level leagues for that.
A national team at the senior level is not meant to develop players. Players at the top level should already be developed.
A club coach (both at the top level and youth level) has the luxury to work daily with their players. Most national teams play around 12 matches per calender year. National team coaches do not have the luxury to work with their players on a consistant basis. A national team coach can only observe and see which players are able to adapt the quickest.
I think many are fooling themselves into believing that this Copa America is just an experimental phase.
To add on to what another poster write, Brazil, Argentina, and other teams like Germany step on to the field for one purpose--to win.
I think Bob Bradley made the mistake to publicly state that the Copa America was going to be used as a testing ground. That leaves me to believe that either 1) he is ridding himself of his responsibilities as a national team head coach OR 2) does not care about the tournament.
Me thinks it's the first.
You're wrong that Brazil comes to win every tournament. When Brazil was a guest team at the Gold Cup, they sent a young team.
If they had really wanted to win, instead of gain experience for their players, they would have sent their best players.
It's a tactic teams around the world use, giving young players a chance in certain tournaments.
But AC, Brazil can do to the Gold Cup and still contend to win the thing. Look at the last Copa America in which they and Argentina both admitted they were bringing their second teams and both were still fighting to win the trophy. Brazil won that Copa America with its coach admitting only a handful of that team wouldn't even make it to the full team roster. They used their own regional tournament to develop players but with the understanding they were there to win and if they couldn't do that then they would have much of an opportunity to make the regular squad. The US didn't come to Copa America with an attitude that displayed an intent to make a run at the trophy. Instead it has been one of if we lose its ok b/c we are only here to for the experience. Since when do we play to make up the numbers? Lic was right their club teams should be teaching these players how to control a game not the national team. Hopefully in a few years MLS and US Soccer new emphasis on academy development will produce players who want need to use the USMNT as place to learn basic soccer tactics. Its sad that some players have been playing in MLS for years and still have to be thought by the national team basic things like how to keep possesssion. It has been a bit instulting to the Copa America that the US could think it could come to South America and pull a Brazil/Argentina at least those two teams expect to still win and their fans should always rightfully demand.
You really think that a Brazilian "B" "C" or "F" team playing an international tournament has a "get out of jail" card if they lose because they are not at "full" strength?
You are sorely mistaken if you think that the CBF and Brazil's media outlets "allow" any Brazilian team to lose.
I suggest you read Jornal Dos Sports or catch webfeeds o shows like Terciero Tempo, Futebol on Tv Red or O Globo. Their press are vicious. To their media, the caliber type of team is irrelevent. They know they have more than 1000 Brazilians playing throughout the world playinf at all different type of levels. They can call their players from Spain, England, Germany, Holland, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Russia, Mexico, etc.
No Brazilian head coach is going to use the national team as a scouting or developing vehicle because their mindset is that a player is already developed at that level.
-------------
Furthermore, the SR national team is not a vehicle used to develop players. ANY head coach that tries to say otherwise is selling something---a load of bollocks. If a head coach is lucky, they will have access to their players for 30-40 days a year.
Exhibition matches are meant to observe which players can make the proper adjustments and tournaments are meant to win.
When Brazil sent their U-23 to the Gold Cup (96/03) they did it to prepare for the Olympics, and in both cases it was their best youth players and they reached the final.
Their only dubious participation was in GC'98 when the Romario led squad took the tournament for granted.
In either case Brazil is always expected to win, they are after all regarded as the best team in the World.
And when playing lesser tournaments even their future stars have that show what they are capable of.
Or do you think that a side fielding the likes of Kaka, Baptista, Robinho, and Diego are not expected to win against teams regarded to be second rate?
I'm saying that if Brazil decided that winning the Gold Cup was the most important thing, rather than taking a chance with younger players to help develop them, they wouldn't have sent a young team.
Of course they had a chance of winning - I'm not disputing that. But would they have had a much better chance with experienced players? Obviously.
My point is, great teams like Brazil take chances with younger players to develop them. Why is it such a ghastly thing that a team that aspires to improve - the U.S. - borrows that technique?
AC,
I don't believe any poster stated that Brazil thought the Gold Cup was more important or the most important thing just that Brazil came to win the trophy even if it brought an experience squad. But Brazil can do that and still expect to win. But at least they showed some respect for the competition by coming to win and not just gain expeience.
The problem people have is that the US/Bradley did not come to win they came for the experience only. There is a big difference. When you start a uncapped right back against Argentina who had only 3 days exposure to the National Team setup, do actually expect to win that game? When your first sub is a guy whose career is on a serious down turn and is as shocked as anyone else that he would get an invite you are obviously not playing to win. B/c there is no way in hell the coaching staff could think Gaven could make a positive impact on that game. Then to sub on Gomez yet another player with 3 days exposure to the National Team what did they really expect for him to be able to do out there? Then he benches those same 3 players against Paraguay b/c what? They didn't play well? What a surprise. So now the South Americans fed is upset an rightful so that the US didn't take this more seriously, b/c the US showed a lack of respect for the whole thing. An to hear Twellman, Keller, Bornstein, and Bradley make statement like "oh we have to learn to take better care of the ball and keep possession" or something like that. Are you serious? Thats professional soccer 101. Hell the Revolution is always stressing to keep possession of the ball. What they are claiming to learn they should have already known if they did know these thing before heading down there then they truely were a clueless bunch. I don't know what depth could possibly be gotten out of this experience accept that unlike Brazil we can not expect to bring our unexperience players to a competitive tournament an expect to do well let alone win.
No matter what you think of the squad Bradley brought, it's foolish to say that they could not have advanced - they definitely had their chances. Whether Brazil came to win the Gold Cup or not is immaterial - the fact is, they didn't bring the players best suited to win. They brought players to gain experience, with the winning being secondary. Defend it however you like, but that is what teams do to build depth. There's nothing wrong with the U.S. doing the same.
I never said that the US didn't have a chance to win its just that Bradley's choices revealed that he wasn't given his own team much of a chance to win. Its a big difference then Brazil's intent. Brazil would say gain experience but that is no excuse to not win and you are expected to win. So you can not use the excuse of playing for experience for why you did not win or performed well. The US has been saying something different, its saying the reason we didn't performed that well in Copa is b/c our priority was to gain experience and not try to win whole heartly. Brazil made it very clear it intented to win the whole Gold Cup and expected to despite bringing lesser experience players. For you to say that they weren't during that is just stupid! I can't not blame the officials from Copa America for being upset about the US's approach as it lacked respect for the tournament. You can try to fool yourself all you like about building depth but if these players don't already know to shield a ball or hold possession or understand that not finishing means you can't win then they are just sad. An its sad for you to suppport such underarchieving goals as this. Accepting an intent not to win in the name of development is wrong. If you don't play your hardest to win then you won't really know how good or bad you are b/c you were approaching it half ass. Like most teams approach a friendly except the US applied it to a competition so now they don't really know how good they are against top level competition b/c w/o that intent to win their effort has been lacking. Thats ok that they underperformed though b/c they were only their to gain experience in the first place. Its self-defeating plain and simply.
later
Find me a quote from Bradley that says he wasn't trying to win. Find me a quote from Copa America officials that say they're upset with the U.S. entry to the tournament.
The mistakes you point out in the tournament are exactly what needed to be exposed for the U.S. to improve - and their biggest let down wasn't actually in the majority of their play - it was in their finishing and a couple of defensive lapses.
No one watching the games should have thought, "this U.S. team doesn't belong" but instead have thought, "this team needs to finish those chances they're creating"
http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/6991708
Usually I agree with you but in this case I think the US has to take responsibiliy for a FAILED expirement. The Gold Cup was the lesser of the two tournaments and it was a mistake to send a team full of unknown variables.
Bradley would never out right say it but his statement about gaining experience reveal it. The AP story about the South American officials displeasure with the US approach is all the quotes that I need. All the flaws about lack of finishing and defensive lapses were the same issues that came to light in the Gold Cup! There was absolutely nothing new learned regarding those 2 issues. The regulars at the Gold Cup could not finish clear shots on goals and made defensive mistakes same for the Copa squad what is new about that? We know right now that in the last 2 summers the only top 30 team we can beat in a meaningful competitive match is Mexico. If we beat Columbia tonight it just goes to show we can win on foreign soil when the pressure is off aka a friendly.
Can we please move on to a post-Copa thoughts thread after the US v. Columbia game? Though I respect your opinions and you are my favorite soccer writer it is clear that me and you don't agree on this and I'm find with that. We both have prety much ran this into the ground.
In respectful disagreement,
degerron
I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with me, just trying to explain my point of view.
The AP story also pointed out that the U.S. would be invited again, and that the organization was similarly disappointed in Brazil not bringing its best players - once again, if the U.S. is coming under criticism for behaving as Brazil does, I don't think that's a bad thing.
I realized that Colombia is spelled colombia not columbia oops my bad:-)!
Post a Comment